there is currently a battle over planned parent hood funding, as well as tax-payer subsidized contraceptives and abortions on demand.

What's wrong with "if you want it, then you go get it" Not like anyone is trying to tell another what to do or what not to do.....pretty simple

Yes... if you never use unemployment, should you pay for the "freeloaders"?

Same thought process with medicare, although I admit it is a weaker example as most people will be on medicare assuming they make it to the appropriate age.

My point is that there probably aren't ANY government-funded programs that at least one person couldn't go say "I'll never use that service, so I'm not paying that percentage of my taxes!".

So... where does it end?

I have no idea what you are talking about

The thesis of your main point is basically that if you don't use it, you don't want to have to pay for it. My point is that if you are complaining about paying for some programs that you don't/won't use, then you have to complain about EVERY program, including ones like unemployment and Medicare.

there is currently a battle over planned parent hood funding, as well as tax-payer subsidized contraceptives and abortions on demand.

What's wrong with "if you want it, then you go get it" Not like anyone is trying to tell another what to do or what not to do.....pretty simple

Yes... if you never use unemployment, should you pay for the "freeloaders"?

Same thought process with medicare, although I admit it is a weaker example as most people will be on medicare assuming they make it to the appropriate age.

My point is that there probably aren't ANY government-funded programs that at least one person couldn't go say "I'll never use that service, so I'm not paying that percentage of my taxes!".

So... where does it end?

I have no idea what you are talking about

The thesis of your main point is basically that if you don't use it, you don't want to have to pay for it. My point is that if you are complaining about paying for some programs that you don't/won't use, then you have to complain about EVERY program, including ones like unemployment and Medicare.

we're talking about the picture right? The point of the picture is the hypocrisy of those who say "keep your government out of my uterus" but then demand government intervention into their birth control and contraceptive use and abortions.

Phatscotty wrote:we're talking about the picture right? The point of the picture is the hypocrisy of those who say "keep your government out of my uterus" but then demand government intervention into their birth control and contraceptive use and abortions.

Although that's not what Player was arguing, and you were being a bit of an ass by just posting a cartoon in reply.

But anyway:

Player wrote:Funny how telling ME what to do with MY body suddenly became a religious issue for YOU.

The real attack on freedom here is the idea that women don't have the right to make medical reproductive decisions because some religious individuals decide they dislike the decisions these women make for their own bodies.

the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to take another look at whether a key requirement in the health care reform law violates religious freedoms.

A pending lawsuit from Liberty University had claimed, among other things, that the law would lead to taxpayer dollars funding abortions and contraception, a claim the Obama administration rejects. The justices issued their order Monday.

The high court in June had upheld the overall law championed by President Obama, but left room for continued legal challenges to certain aspects of the law's application.

The Virginia-based school bills itself as the largest Christian evangelical college in the world.Documentary: Health care overhaul neededObamacare: what's next?

A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2011 unanimously concluded the university's lawsuit should be blocked on jurisdictional grounds. There is no indication when the appeals court will revisit the issue in the wake of the high court's order.

After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's funding mechanism -- the so-called individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a financial penalty -- it tossed out all other pending appeals.

Liberty University then refiled its lawsuit, saying its objections to the law should be reconsidered in light of the court's 5-4 ruling affirming the overall law.

Read more: Wyoming voters send anti-Obamacare message

The school believes Americans should not be required to purchase health insurance -- and employers forced to provide it -- if there are legitimate moral and religious objections to some provisions.

It is one of several dozen pending lawsuits around the country filed to challenge the law's application since the June decision. The Richmond-based appeals court taking on the Liberty University case could ask both the federal government and the school to submit updated legal arguments. The Obama administration did not object to the university asking for another chance to press its claims.

Funny how telling ME what to do with MY body suddenly became a religious issue for YOU.

The real attack on freedom here is the idea that women don't have the right to make medical reproductive decisions because some religious individuals decide they dislike the decisions these women make for their own bodies.

pretty sure you have completely forgotten to factor in the entire premise......FORCING someone else to pay for your contraception or abortion, to be specific.

It's about how tax dollars are spent, it has nothing to do with your privacy.

there is currently a battle over planned parent hood funding, as well as tax-payer subsidized contraceptives and abortions on demand.

What's wrong with "if you want it, then you go get it" Not like anyone is trying to tell another what to do or what not to do.....pretty simple

Yes... if you never use unemployment, should you pay for the "freeloaders"?

Same thought process with medicare, although I admit it is a weaker example as most people will be on medicare assuming they make it to the appropriate age.

My point is that there probably aren't ANY government-funded programs that at least one person couldn't go say "I'll never use that service, so I'm not paying that percentage of my taxes!".

So... where does it end?

I have no idea what you are talking about

The thesis of your main point is basically that if you don't use it, you don't want to have to pay for it. My point is that if you are complaining about paying for some programs that you don't/won't use, then you have to complain about EVERY program, including ones like unemployment and Medicare.

we're talking about the picture right? The point of the picture is the hypocrisy of those who say "keep your government out of my uterus" but then demand government intervention into their birth control and contraceptive use and abortions.

No, I'm talking about your main point:

Phatscotty wrote:pretty sure you have completely forgotten to factor in the entire premise......FORCING someone else to pay for your contraception or abortion, to be specific.

It's about how tax dollars are spent, it has nothing to do with your privacy.

And back to my point... I may never use unemployment, so why should I pay?

Phatscotty wrote:Nope. I didn't say that because I don't use birth control...

Put simply, taxpayer dollars should not go to fund abortions or contraceptives

You still didn't get it. Please try and actually engage the other side.

Scotty, you'll never go to school again. Yet, you as a taxpayer are forced to fund the education of other children. Don't see you frothing at the mouth about that program. Or literally every other program, just because you don't agree to a war doesn't mean you can just deduct that from your tax. Programs doesn't have to directly affect you for it to be beneficial, and that's such a selfish, blinkered and narrow minded perspective.As Medefe and other repeatedly pointed out increasing the access to contraceptives is beneficial and cost-saving to the entire community.

This is as much about Victorian prudishness and attitude to sex as it is about perceived government spending.

Phatscotty wrote:Nope. I didn't say that because I don't use birth control...

Put simply, taxpayer dollars should not go to fund abortions or contraceptives

You still didn't get it. Please try and actually engage the other side.

Scotty, you'll never go to school again. Yet, you as a taxpayer are forced to fund the education of other children. Don't see you frothing at the mouth about that program. Or literally every other program, just because you don't agree to a war doesn't mean you can just deduct that from your tax. Programs doesn't have to directly affect you for it to be beneficial, and that's such a selfish, blinkered and narrow minded perspective.As Medefe and other repeatedly pointed out increasing the access to contraceptives is beneficial and cost-saving to the entire community.

This is as much about Victorian prudishness and attitude to sex as it is about perceived government spending.

So why, in 2012, are women suddenly unable to pay for their own contraceptives when they've been buying them for themselves for the nearly 100 years they've been around? Why must people buy their own contraceptives AND buy for others who refuse to buy their own?

By the way, national defense is actually a Constitutionally-defined role of the federal government. Where is providing/mandating contraceptives a Constitutionally-defined role?

Night Strike wrote:By the way, national defense is actually a Constitutionally-defined role of the federal government. Where is providing/mandating contraceptives a Constitutionally-defined role?

That would be a valid response if invading Afghanistan could in any rational way be interpreted as providing for the "national defense."

Considering the group that attacked us on 9-11 was not actually a national army, does that mean we weren't allowed to retaliate for those attacks? If a non-governmental entity attacks a country, that country is not able to do anything because the entity is not a country that can be retaliated upon? The US should have just set idol for the past 11 years and let Al-Qaeda attack us as much as they desired since they weren't part of a nation to stop?

Night Strike wrote:By the way, national defense is actually a Constitutionally-defined role of the federal government. Where is providing/mandating contraceptives a Constitutionally-defined role?

That would be a valid response if invading Afghanistan could in any rational way be interpreted as providing for the "national defense."

Considering the group that attacked us on 9-11 was not actually a national army, does that mean we weren't allowed to retaliate for those attacks? If a non-governmental entity attacks a country, that country is not able to do anything because the entity is not a country that can be retaliated upon? The US should have just set idol for the past 11 years and let Al-Qaeda attack us as much as they desired since they weren't part of a nation to stop?

What's a non-governmental entity, NS?

the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein

Night Strike wrote:By the way, national defense is actually a Constitutionally-defined role of the federal government. Where is providing/mandating contraceptives a Constitutionally-defined role?

That would be a valid response if invading Afghanistan could in any rational way be interpreted as providing for the "national defense."

Considering the group that attacked us on 9-11 was not actually a national army, does that mean we weren't allowed to retaliate for those attacks? If a non-governmental entity attacks a country, that country is not able to do anything because the entity is not a country that can be retaliated upon? The US should have just set idol for the past 11 years and let Al-Qaeda attack us as much as they desired since they weren't part of a nation to stop?

What's a non-governmental entity, NS?

Al-Qaeda. A group that does not act under the direct authority of a national government. This is opposed to if a military had attacked.

Night Strike wrote:By the way, national defense is actually a Constitutionally-defined role of the federal government. Where is providing/mandating contraceptives a Constitutionally-defined role?

That would be a valid response if invading Afghanistan could in any rational way be interpreted as providing for the "national defense."

Considering the group that attacked us on 9-11 was not actually a national army, does that mean we weren't allowed to retaliate for those attacks? If a non-governmental entity attacks a country, that country is not able to do anything because the entity is not a country that can be retaliated upon? The US should have just set idol for the past 11 years and let Al-Qaeda attack us as much as they desired since they weren't part of a nation to stop?

What's a non-governmental entity, NS?

Al-Qaeda. A group that does not act under the direct authority of a national government. This is opposed to if a military had attacked.

A non-governmental entity is Al-Qaeda? I think you may have a few problems in your thinking there, from a number of directions.

the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein

Symmetry wrote:A non-governmental entity is Al-Qaeda? I think you may have a few problems in your thinking there, from a number of directions.

Then enlighten me.

I think you might have have found them re-reading your comments, as you've removed them from this reply.

Are you ok with me quoting them?

What are you talking about? I removed quotes because you can only embed a certain number of quotes within each other and we were at or near that limit. Would you just spit out what you're wanting to say?

Symmetry wrote:A non-governmental entity is Al-Qaeda? I think you may have a few problems in your thinking there, from a number of directions.

Then enlighten me.

I think you might have have found them re-reading your comments, as you've removed them from this reply.

Are you ok with me quoting them?

What are you talking about? I removed quotes because you can only embed a certain number of quotes within each other and we were at or near that limit. Would you just spit out what you're wanting to say?

"at or near" that limit?

We gonna have to embed to the limit before you make sense?

But anyway, you were being very very silly and suggesting that an attack by a non-governmental entity, let's say, Al-Qaida, or Blackwater, justifies retaliation in any form.

the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein

Night Strike wrote:Al-Qaeda. A group that does not act under the direct authority of a national government. This is opposed to if a military had attacked.

I have some qualms with the way our drone program has operated, but if there were better oversight and they were used with more restraint, this could be a great tool for fighting terrorism. We wouldn't need to completely invade a country and topple its government as a means of getting at a small terrorist organization.

jj3044 wrote:And back to my point... I may never use unemployment, so why should I pay?

Get it?

Becuase its INSURANCE. You don't know that you never will need it. You may be lucky. But, you just don't know. Just like you don't know if your house will burn, you will get into a car accident or anything else.

IN this case, the damage to society for your "personal decision" that you "don't need" unemployment insurance is just not worth it. So, we are all mandated to buy it .. just like you have to buy auto insurance if you want to drive, even if you are a fantastic driver.

And, yes.. you ought to have to buy medical insurance because, no matter how much you might protest, the truth is that if your child's appendix is about to burst, you WILL show up at the hospital for surgary whether you "have the money" or not!

Phatscotty wrote:Nope. I didn't say that because I don't use birth control...

Put simply, taxpayer dollars should not go to fund abortions or contraceptives

They don't go to fund abortions.

Contraceptive use is part of female medical care, as determined by the American Medical profession and the US Supreme Court. Denying somethign so fundamental to the health of one gender becuase you happen to dislike it is gender discrimination.

Also, the claim that you are actually paying for this is pretty loose, becuase most of the cost is paid through private insurance, not state or federal funding.

Or, to put it in economic terms.. I am roughly OK with the US population deciding my personnal healthcare choices comminserate with the percentage they contribute to said care. That means that you get roughly a 0.0000000001 vote in this decision. To contrast, I get a 99.99% stake.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Contraceptive use is part of female medical care, as determined by the American Medical profession and the US Supreme Court. Denying somethign so fundamental to the health of one gender becuase you happen to dislike it is gender discrimination.

Using contraceptives to treat issues such as irregular periods is part of female medical care. Using it to avoid pregnancies is a personal choice that no other person should be forced to pay for.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Contraceptive use is part of female medical care, as determined by the American Medical profession and the US Supreme Court. Denying somethign so fundamental to the health of one gender becuase you happen to dislike it is gender discrimination.

Using contraceptives to treat issues such as irregular periods is part of female medical care. Using it to avoid pregnancies is a personal choice that no other person should be forced to pay for.

So it's ok to make a personal choice to avoid irregular periods, but it's not ok to make a personal choice to avoid all periods?